Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

Our great readers are reminded that it is not a crime, nor a violation of any federal or Arizona statute, to subscribe to Urgent Agenda between subscription drives, or to make a donation to our noble and peerless efforts. 

We'll have another subscription drive in the fall, but we would certainly welcome some new subscribers and donators now.  Go to the right-hand column under SUBSCRIPTIONS.  No one will think ill of you.

Great benefits, no health plan. 

(And a thank you to those who are currently joining the Crusade.)

MONDAY,  JULY 12,  2010

WE ARE SINNERS, WE ARE SINNERS!  LISTEN UP! – AT 10:58 P.M. ET:  Our sinfulness is clear and obvious.  Every time, and I mean EVERY time you turn on that air conditioner, to live your life of sloth and luxury, you are sinning.  You must stop.  Right now.  WaPo says so:

Washington didn't grind to a sweaty halt last week under triple-digit temperatures. People didn't even slow down. Instead, the three-day, 100-plus-degree, record-shattering heat wave prompted Washingtonians to crank up their favorite humidity-reducing, electricity-bill-busting, fluorocarbon-filled appliance: the air conditioner.

Miserable, rotten swine.

This isn't smart. In a country that's among the world's highest greenhouse-gas emitters, air conditioning is one of the worst power-guzzlers. The energy required to air-condition American homes and retail spaces has doubled since the early 1990s. Turning buildings into refrigerators burns fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases, which raises global temperatures, which creates a need for -- you guessed it -- more air-conditioning.

We are fools.  Fools! 

A.C.'s obvious public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its lavish use in everyday life for months on end. Less than half a century ago, America thrived with only the spottiest use of air conditioning. It could again. While central air will always be needed in facilities such as hospitals, archives and cooling centers for those who are vulnerable to heat, what would an otherwise A.C.-free Washington look like?

We are talking Paradise.  Believe it!  Imagine it!  We forgive you, sinners!

In a world without air conditioning, a warmer, more flexible, more relaxed workplace helps make summer a time to slow down again. Three-digit temperatures prompt siestas. Code-orange days mean offices are closed. Shorter summer business hours and month-long closings -- common in pre-air-conditioned America -- return.

Let us go back to those wonderful days.  Drip, children.  Drip with sweat.  Love those fainting spells.

Heat stroke?  We love it, love it.

July 12, 2010     Permalink

IT'S ABOUT TIME – AT 7:47 A.M. ET:  Republicans are waking from their usual beauty sleep and are realizing that the Bush tax cuts, which expires at the end of December, are popular, and, thought, may actually be a great campaign issue.  From Fox:

With the economy still sputtering, Republicans are drawing renewed attention to the looming expiration of Bush-era tax cuts and warning that the rollback will "clobber" everyone from small business owners to middle-class families.

Though the tax cuts passed by Congress with the encouragement of former President George W. Bush are often described as a boon for the wealthy, the changes passed in 2001 and 2003 lowered taxes for every income bracket.

Democrats have pledged to shield middle-class taxpayers from the Dec. 31 expiration though no action has been taken yet. Democratic leaders reportedly have suggested holding off taking up extending the cuts until after the November election and a report released by President Obama's debt commission.

To allow the expiration would be devastating, says Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl.

"That's going to be a huge hit to the economy," Kyl, R-Ariz., told "Fox News Sunday."

And...

Asked where Congress is going to find the hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to finance a continuation of the cuts, Kyl said it's not a matter of finding more dollars for spending that hasn't occurred yet.

"You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," he said.

COMMENT:  This becomes a big issue when the middle class and small business owners realizes how much their taxes will rise if the Bush cuts expire.  In some cases, rates will go up 50%, from 10% to 15%. 

Republicans have to explain this, and do it in ways that the average voter can understand.  Dems will probably do something to ease the problem for the middle class, but Democratic hostility to business is such that the small business guy may be left with a huge bill. 

Major issue, winning issue, if presented well by attractive candidates.

July 12, 2010    Permalink

ALLAH-SPEED, JOHN GLENN – AT 7:21 P.M. ET:  A funny thing happened to NASA's outreach to the Muslim world.  It ran into public ridicule, and the White House finally noticed.  From Fox:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden must have misspoken when he told Al Jazeera last month that one of his top priorities is to reach out to Muslim countries.

"That was not his task and that's not the task of NASA," Gibbs said.

Bolden, though, said last month in the interview that it was President Obama who gave him that task. He made a similar claim in February.

The White House also backed up Bolden last week when his remarks first stirred controversy. A White House spokesman last Tuesday said Obama wants NASA to engage with the world's best scientists and that to meet that challenge, NASA must "partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries."

NASA last week walked back Bolden's claim that Muslim outreach was the "perhaps foremost" plank of his mission, saying that Bolden was merely talking about his "outreach" responsibilities and that space exploration is still NASA's No. 1 job.

COMMENT:  The contradictions fly higher than the space shuttle.  I think it's clear that Bolden reported Obama's instructions accurately.  But now Houston, or Washington, has a problem, so Bolden becomes the bad guy.  After all, there's still plenty of room under that well-known bus.  Bolden has apparently been assigned a place, right next to Reverend Wright. 

The damage to the administration from this flap isn't too great...because most of the mainstream media never carried the original story in the first place.  Another great moment in journalism.

July 12, 2010      Permalink

WHY ARE WE NOT SURPRISED? – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  The Russians, who should know, are now actually warning of a nuclear Iran:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Monday that Iran was approaching the point at which it would be able to make nuclear weapons, Reuters reported.

During a meeting of international ambassadors in Moscow, Medvedev said "Iran is moving closer to possessing the potential which in principle could be used for the creation of nuclear weapons."

Russia, helpful as always, is building a reactor for Iran.  It must know a great deal about the Iranian nuclear program. 

The statement was a rare public admission by the Kremlin that Iran may have the intention of building a nuclear weapon. Reuters said the statement came after an argument with Iran over Russia's support of sanctions against Iran.

COMMENT:  Welcome to 2011, President Obama.

I don't think I recall a president heading for more trouble than this one:  an economy still in the tank, an Iranian nuclear bomb, illegal immigration out of control, and probable major losses in November.  Add to that the possibility of setbacks in Afghanistan, and you've truly got "times that try men's souls." 

Nothing Mr. Obama has done has dented Iran.  There are some reports that the newest sanctions are hurting the country, but even CIA Director Leon Panetta says that it's highly unlikely that they will stop the nuclear program.  Still, the prevailing mentality of the Obama White House is to make sure that Israel doesn't launch a preemptive strike on Iran to take out the nuclear facilities, rather than taking action that will prevent the weapons from existing in the first place.

This is starting to have the feel of the 1930s.

July 12, 2010     Permalink

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO BRITAIN? – AT 8:32 A.M. ET:  We report periodically on the descent of the British legal system into a kind of leftist never-never land, and warn that this could easily happen here.  Indeed, with Eric Holder's misguided lawsuit against Arizona, and his refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther/voter intimidation case, maybe it already is happening here.  From Britain's Telegraph:

Murders and other serious crimes committed by prisoners released early from jail may have to be “accepted” by the public as part of attempts to keep down the cost of the criminal justice system, the probation watchdog suggested.

Andrew Bridges questioned whether it was worth keeping thousands of violent and dangerous offenders locked up for longer than the minimum jail term set by a court just to stop a few of them committing new crimes.

Some reoffending — even if it involved “serious” new crimes — could be the price that society had to pay for trying to cut down on the huge cost of the country’s rising prison population, said Mr Bridges, the chief inspector of probation. While acknowledging that prison reduced crime, he described it as a “rather drastic form of crime prevention” and said it was time to consider dealing with more offenders in the community.

He claimed that the public could never be perfectly protected and that the cost of a “small amount” of reoffending could be outweighed by the “benefit” of financial savings to the public purse made from having less prisoners locked up.

COMMENT:  Can you believe that?  I wonder which part of his family Mr. Bridges is willing to sacrifice to be victims of "reoffending."

Of course, subtle threats like this are common on the left.  What Bridges is saying is this: " Cut our budget, lose your life."  It's said, however, more elegantly.  In this country they usually start with, "Don't hurt the children."

If you were an illegal immigrant coming over the Mexican border with the intention of committing crimes for profit, how fearful would you be of the Obama crowd?  Not very.

We seem to be going back to the sixties.  Didn't work out too well. 

July 12, 2010      Permalink

BARONE ANALYZES "MATTRESS ECONOMY" – AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone, one of the best political analysts around, calls it the "mattress economy," and it isn't working very well, meaning big trouble for the man at the top.  From The Washington Examiner:

Government policies designed to stimulate the economy seem to be having the opposite effect. Consumers aren't buying, businesses aren't hiring and those fortunate enough to have some cash on hand don't seem to be investing.

I call it the mattress economy.

People seem to be following this investment strategy. Step one: Go to Mattress Discounters and buy the biggest mattress you can find. Step two: Take it home and stuff all your money in it. Step three: Lie down and get some rest.

This hurts the economy, but it's a rational response to the Obama Democrats' public policies. And that's not just the view of their political opponents.

Consider the plaint of Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, head of the Business Roundtable, which has been playing footsie with the Obama administration for most of the last 18 months. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life," Seidenberg recently wrote, "government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise new capital and create new businesses."

And...

Instead of stimulating the economy, the Obama Democrats' policies have shocked it into immobility. People are lying on their mattresses, waiting for the next shock. At least one is definitely coming: The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, which means that high earners can be sure they will very soon keep less of what they make.

There will be an enormous fight over the expiring Bush tax cuts.  Democrats, as a matter of religious faith, cannot renew them.  Republicans will demand that the Dems commit heresy and agree to renewing.  A good time will not be had by all.

The grimness for this administration has only begun.

America has seen this kind of thing before. In the late 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt raised taxes on high earners, encouraged lawless sit-in strikes by labor unions and took over utility businesses, the response was a "capital strike."

Instead of creating jobs, businesses and investors put their money in mattresses. The result was a stagnant economy and double-digit unemployment-and a 75-seat Republican gain in the 1938 off-year elections.

COMMENT:  As Sarah asks, "How's that hopey changey stuff workin' out for you?"

Unless Obama can turn things around, or appear to, I think there's a realistic chance he will be a one-term president, either through defeat at the polls or his own decision to retire from the field rather than risk a humiliating defeat.

But Obama is an ideologist.  I don't think there's much chance he'll change any basic policies. 

Liberals were in political Heaven in November of 2008.  Now they're heading south, for the hotter sectors of the religious universe.  They will need Obamacare just to treat their psychiatric turmoil.

July 12,  2010     Permalink

OBAMA AND PETRAEUS – CLASH COMING? – AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  We've written here that the most fascinating relationship in modern politics may be the one developing between President Obama and General David Petraeus.

Did Obama pick Petraeus to run the Afghanistan war in order to win, or is he setting Petraeus up to blame him for failure and sidetrack him as a presidential candidate?  Is Petraeus in the Afghan fight for the duration, or will he resign in protest as his plans are thwarted, and then enter the presidential arena?

Hey, now that's a movie.  With potential sequels.  Get me an agent.

Now, in a superb piece of traditional reporting, Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times reveals that the Petraeus war-fighting doctrine is in direct contradiction to President Obama's approach to the threat of terrorism.  A clash almost seems inevitable:

The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.

But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.

The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.

Do you see problems ahead?  Petraeus is from Mars, Obama is from Kenya.

The Petraeus counterinsurgency manual takes the position that, to understand the enemy, commanders must recognize terrorist links to Islam — its leaders in some cases, its fundraising and its infrastructure. Forces must fight "Islamic extremists," it says, differently from the Viet Cong or followers of Saddam Hussein.

"Islamic extremists use perceived threats to their religion by outsiders to mobilize support for their insurgency and justify terrorist tactics," the manual states.

COMMENT:  Where does this clear split lead?  Petraeus is a superb politician, and it's possible he can paper over the differences.  Or, he can insist that his doctrine prevail, and hint at resignation if it doesn't, something that would deeply embarrass the Obamans. 

Petraeus is more popular than Obama, but still must be careful how he maneuvers.  A general must still show proper deference to civil authority, as Douglas MacArthur found out the hard way.

But the philosophical split is deep and real.  This is not Lincoln and Grant.  Those two agreed.  And it's not Roosevelt and Eisenhower.  They also agreed.  Both Grant and Eisenhower became president.

July 12, 2010       Permalink

SUNDAY,  JULY 11,  2010

I DON'T GET IT – AT 7:47 P.M. ET:  There was this soccer game on TV today.  I understand it was important to some people.

Maybe it's my action-oriented American sensibility, but I don't get that game.  I mean, consider:  A bunch of boys in silly Bermuda shorts and bright colors run onto this field.  They have this ball that they kick around, minute after minute.

Nothing happens.

Then they hit it with their heads.

Nothing happens.

You want to root for someone, but you can't because the names of their teams are printed in such small letters that you can't read a thing on TV. 

Nothing happens.

The fans in the stands blow these horns that drive everyone crazy, and no one does anything about it.

Nothing happens.

On each end of the field are these big nets large enough to capture a truck.  Yet all these boys, who are supposed to be the best, can't get that little ball into that huge net.

Nothing happens.

Then, way toward the end, after all of us have fallen asleep, one guy gets the ball into the net, scores one point, and the whole world erupts.

Whatever happened to respectable scores, like 45-33, Oklahoma; or 7-4, Yankees?  Those are games!

Look, I have a ball in my office, for exercise.  I kick it around.  I bump it with my head, although not intentionally.  I can kick it between two stereo speakers every time.  Does anyone cheer me with loud horns?  Do I get love letters from readers?  Do I get to wear the silly shorts?   Of course not.

The whole soccer thing is a fraud.  Soccer moms should be alerted.  I can do that better than those foreign guys.  I'm available.  We Americans are great.

And we can go nine innings or four quarters.

July 11, 2010      Permalink

FROM HIS MOUTH – AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  A major acknowledgment of the political trouble the Dems are in.  From AP:

WASHINGTON -President Barack Obama's party could lose its House majority in this fall's elections, his spokesman said Sunday, perhaps trying to jolt Democratic voters with the specter of GOP lawmakers rolling back White House policies.

"I think there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There's no doubt about that," press secretary Robert Gibbs told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Democrats now hold a 255-178 edge in the House, with two vacancies in the 435-member chamber. Anywhere from 40 to perhaps 60 House seats could be competitive by the fall. Republicans would need to take back about 40 seats to slip into the majority, placing the current GOP leader, Ohio Rep. John Boehner, in line to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as speaker.

Those House Democrats who won election for the first time in 2008 in conservative leaning districts as part of the Obama wave are particularly vulnerable this fall, given that the president is not on the ballot.

Gibbs said retaining House control would depend on strong campaigns by Democrats. "I think we have to take the issues to them," he said, adding that the primary argument would be how Republicans would govern as the majority party.

COMMENT:  Essentially, Gibbs is acknowledging that the main Dem strategy will be the scare tactic, possibly reinforced by targeted use of the race card:  The Republicans are too scary to put back in power.  They will take away your Social Security, your Medicare, your mother, even your personal trainer.

That tactic has been used before, and very successfully.  It can be countered best by clear Republican proposals that the American people see as practical, fair and effective.  I don't see those proposals yet.

July 11, 2010       Permalink

WHO CARES WHAT THOSE PEASANTS OUT THERE WANT? – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  John Fund of The Wall Street Journal reports that Democrats, bracing for a major defeat in November,  are preparing for a lame-duck session of Congress to enact their pet legislation, regardless of the will of the people.  The arrogance is breathtaking:

"I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota's Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama's deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. "It could be a huge deal," he told Roll Call last month. "We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path." By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like "card check"—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—"the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future."

Can you imagine making the elimination of a secret ballot for workers a priority?  What has happened to the Democratic Party?

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again."

He must be so proud.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending.

Hooray for progress.

It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn't faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

Get this one:

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate "Blue Dogs" in the House would support on the campaign trail.

Finally...

Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate.

COMMENT:  Pretty chilling, huh?  The people be damned.  Election results be damned.  My question is:  If they're willing to do these things, what else are they willing to do to restrict democracy and expand government power?

One could argue that at least FDR had a public mandate for great social programs, and we can debate the value of those programs.  There is no mandate today.  But there is a very arrogant party, based largely on the coasts, that has its own vision of society, and will try to impose it.

And be scared, be very scared, if Republicans do not gain enough votes in the Senate this November to block the next Supreme Court nominee.  True, the next resignation will probably be Ruth Ginsburg, to be replaced by another liberal.  But swing vote Anthony Kennedy is 74.  And among the four solid conservatives on the Court, Antonin Scalia is also 74.  It is quite possible for Barack Obama, if elected to a second term, and with a Democratic Senate, to push through three more appointments, and change America for the next 25 years.

July 11, 2010      Permalink

IN THIS DAY AND AGE – AT 8:09 A.M. ET:  Given the well-publicized agony of liberals (see the post just below), let's see how much anguish they can work up over this absolute outrage:

Head of Human Rights Headquarters of Iran's Judiciary, Mohammad Javad Larijani slammed Western protests against stoning emphasizing that stoning exists in Iran's constitution and it is "legal."

He responded to the recent campaign in international media backed by Western politicians to stop the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, saying that Iran's judicial system will not change its direction because of "Western attacks" and "media pressures."

These statements come after that Iranian Embassy in London issued a statement saying that the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi will not be carried out.

Mohammad Javad Larijani backed the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi claiming her judicial file has gone through its "natural" course and there is no "point of doubt" about anything in her file.

He states that she was sentenced to 90 lashes in one trial and "stoning" in another trial.

Larijani told IRNA that in recent years "the sacred sentences of Islam" have been the subject of "Western attacks" but Iranian judges continue to issue their sentences according to the "law" despite all these pressures.

COMMENT:  Unbelievable.  And just as unbelievable is the silence of so-called "feminist" groups in the West, many of which are just extensions of old socialist and red groups.  They remain silent because speaking out against this barbarism might "offend" the multicultural crowd and aid what they consider Western imperialism.

What sickness.

July 11, 2010      Permalink

OH JEEZ – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  This is what passes for interpretive journalism these days.  Is there a sixth-grade editor in the house?  From The Politico:

For many liberals, it is the summer of their discontent.

When have they ever been happy?  They're professional sad sacks.

Already disappointed with President Barack Obama’s ability to deliver on campaign promises, they now contemplate a slowing economic recovery and a good chance of Republican gains in November. Such developments would make enacting Obama’s agenda even more difficult.

I would imagine so.

Two recent essays framed the debate raging within the progressive community over why the promise of Obama’s candidacy has not lived up to their expectations — and how liberals should proceed in what they fear will be difficult months ahead.

In a 17,000-plus word piece published in The Nation on Thursday, journalist Eric Alterman calls the Obama presidency “a big disappointment” for progressives and blamed a broken system in Washington that he says allows the minority party to rule with impunity, and special interests and big money to dictate legislative policy.

When has The Nation ever been a liberal magazine?  If it's liberal, what's The New Republic?  The Nation is a far-left magazine, but they're not supposed to say it in mainstream journalism.  "McCarthyism," you know.

But writing in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Michael Tomasky, the editor, counsels patience, arguing that American history has shown that change always takes time and continued effort against entrenched conservative opposition.

Earth to Tomasky:  The opposition isn't only conservative, it's centrist.  And it may shock you that "change" doesn't sell much any longer.  Americans would like to have the "change" spelled out.  What they've seen they don't like.

And get this:

“It’s not just really about Obama, it’s about the state of our country. Every day, you have a sense that people are wondering where this country is headed,” says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation.

Yes, and a lot of those people don't read The Nation and don't live in a multi-million-dollar apartment in Manhattan, as you do, honey.  If you had any idea what happens outside your neighborhood, you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.

It goes on like that, including such gems as...

“It was always naive to expect a president to start a movement,” says Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University history professor and co-editor of the liberal magazine, Dissent. “It’s a little bit like expecting a chief executive to start a union.”

Really?  Then what do historians mean by "the age of Roosevelt" or "the Lincoln era"?  But you have to have a president who's a leader.  Ronald Reagan moved mountains.  Barack Obama won't try to move a mountain because it might offend environmentalists.

July 11, 2010      Permalink